Web Only / Features » January 21, 2014

The ‘Dirty Fifteen’

Their reckless stance sets off an inexorable and unnecessary march towards war. If Congress approves sanctions, Iran has vowed to withdraw from an interim accord that not only opens its nuclear program to international inspectors, but also seriously restricts its nuclear activities.

Naming and shaming is a highly effective tactic used by environmentalists. Take the “Sooty Six” campaign targeting Connecticut’s dirty power plants, which led to passage of a 2002 law—the first of its kind in the nation—that ultimately reduced dangerous soot (sulfur dioxide) emissions by 86 percent. But it’s not just corporate polluters who have been called out; it’s also high-profile politicians. Famously, during the 1970 elections, Earth Day organizers targeted a “Dirty Dozen” of incumbent congressmen with atrocious environmental records. The campaign was credited with ousting seven of them, including George Fallon, the powerful chair of the House Public Works Committee and a staunch foe of mass transit. Fallon’s defeat sent such a chilling message to Congress that only weeks after the election—despite vigorous opposition from major polluting industries—the U.S. Senate approved the 1970 Clean Air Act.

The recent emergence of pro-war Democrats pushing for new sanctions against Iran provides the perfect moment for peace activists to borrow from the environmental playbook. We need an anti-war version of “naming and shaming” directed at these Democrats—call them the “Dirty Fifteen”: Bob Menendez (N.J.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Dick Blumenthal (Conn.), Mark Begich (Ala.), Chris Coons (Dela.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Mark Warner (Va.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Cory Booker (N.J.) and Ben Cardin (Md.). Their reckless stance sets off an inexorable and unnecessary march towards war. If Congress approves sanctions, Iran has vowed to withdraw from an interim accord that not only opens its nuclear program to international inspectors, but also seriously restricts its nuclear activities. Without inspectors, doubt and uncertainty surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities and intentions—whatever the merit—makes future Israeli or American air strikes inevitable.

Strangely, it is against a backdrop of war fatigue that the “Dirty Fifteen” want more of it. Eighty-two percent of the American public now oppose the Afghanistan war (from 46 percent five years ago), 6 in 10 say the Iraq War was a mistake and majorities opposed President Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. But the political tone-deafness doesn’t stop there. Apparently the “Dirty Sixteen” learned nothing from Hillary Clinton’s disastrous vote to authorize the Iraq War. That vote gave candidate Obama the decisive edge over Clinton in the 2008 presidential race.

In addition to mass mobilizations, a clear message must be sent to the “Dirty Sixteen”—many of whom seek re-election—in the form of primary or independent challenges. The full spectrum of progressive forces—those whose work is undermined by reckless military spending—must find and recruit capable candidates to challenge these out-of-touch Democrats. Beyond its deadly tolls, war is implicated in the misery of millions here and abroad. Poverty, underfunded schools, a disappearing social safety net, failing infrastructure, unmet health needs—all are consequences of disproportionate military spending. Politicians who want to tackle these problems must first repudiate war and any actions that make war possible. Are you listening, “Dirty FIfteen” Dems?

CORRECTION: This piece originally listed Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.)erroneously as a Democrat.

So, I suppose going along with the errors in this article, to include the others already pointed out, not my myself, makes you a defender of any poorly researched article.

Additionally, I think you need to read my reply again and point out where I mention "a republican black". I said "hack",as in a newspaper writer, not "black". I do not suffer idiots well, so don't expect be to do so in this instance.

I happen to agree with the idea and points of the article, but I have come to expect better proof-reading and accuracy in articles written on this website. Perhaps you don't appreciate correct information.

Your lack of reading skills and understanding is only surpassed by your ignorance of my point and your speedy wish to categorize me with a character attack which you think are deplorable unless you are the one launching it. Who is now the odious one now?

John, it is now you who is now the person attacking another person's character and making wide ranging erroneous assumptions about them, as I clearly only attacked the errors in the article. Guess you can take the "race card" off of the table that you wrongly read into my comment and apologize to me, but I doubt that you will. Your error in this is that you can't read accurately and quickly rip out a comment. Yeah, talk about truly sad, really.

I did not make the errors in this article and neither did you. Where is the author in these comments making corrections and apologies for his errors? He is perpetuating these flaws by not stepping forward.

John, perhaps, you should, in the future, read the comments that you wish to reply to, at least two or three times. I do not know the level of your reading comprehension, so I will leave that up to you. Though I do not think you are qualified, as you have shown in "your rant" about something that I never even said in the first place in my comment. Your mistake again.

Nice chatting with you. You are obviously a genius, so that makes it my pleasure.

Posted by Lawrence on 2014-01-30 02:03:14

Lawrence,

The error that you point out concerning Mark Begich is obviously one of utilizing an incorrect acronym for his state, which is Alaska (AK). This is properly considered to be a typo. Your ad hominem attack on James Thindwa is pathetically transparent throughout your vitriolic rant. Your reference to "2 or 3 complete errors in name" is typical of someone who attacks character rather than positions or assertions. Your obtuse an specifically odious reference to "republican blacks" rounds out what most readers need to know about you, sir. It's sad, really.

Posted by John on 2014-01-29 14:16:14

Mr. Thindwa,

I suggest that you REWRITE this article and LIST. More than one error of the 15 on the list have already been pointed out below. I have another.

You indicate that this is a list of war-mongering Democrat "Senators". Alabama does not have a Democratic Senator and never has one been named Mark Begich. You indicate that Alabama does have such a Senator, obviously Alabama must have three Senators and one is unknown by the entire State.

Who the heck is on this list and with already 2 or 3 complete errors in name, State represented, party represented, and at least two not even being Senators having been pointed out, I have reason to doubt everything on this list of 15 "Senators", though I do recognize some at least being Senators by their name.

Get your sh!t straight, check your sources and write this again. This is ignorance that is over the top, which is something that I usually reserve for republican hacks.

You should not be allowed to write for a grade school newsletter, much less this website. Apparently research ability and lack of ignorance are not attributes to be on the "Board of Directors" of "In These Times".